Page 1 of 14

University of Toronto

Dalla Lana School of Public Health

CHL5221

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods-in times of COVID19

Course Syllabus

Summer 2020

Time: Monday 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm

Place: Zoom Room (detailed information will be posted on Quercus)

Course Instructor: Dr. Clara Juando-Prats

Office: By Zoom, Windows Teams, or phone call; by appointment.

Email: clara.juando@utoronto.ca

Teaching Assistants:

TBD

Prerequisites There are no prerequisites for this course. CHL 5221 is a requirement for MPH Health Promotion and

Community Nutrition students. Students from other programs and fields will be admitted space permitting

with the permission of the professor.

Acknowledgments The Professor gratefully acknowledges the intellectual and creative contributions of Dan Allman, Ann

Fox, Blake Poland and the Centre for Critical Qualitative Health Research to planning and implementing

of earlier versions of this course.

Course Description This is an introductory course intended for Master students in public health with limited prior exposure to

qualitative research. Students will acquire an introductory-level understanding of qualitative research; it

will provide students with an understanding of the foundations, theory, approaches, and methods

associated with qualitative inquiry, become informed consumers of qualitative research, and begin to plan

and implement qualitative approaches to public health inquiry. Students pursuing qualitative research for

master or doctoral thesis work will need to take additional courses to acquire the required proficiency for

that level of work.

This course covers a range of issues including the theoretical grounding of qualitative research, reflexive

practice, methods of data collection and analysis, application of qualitative research to the exploration of

Page 2 of 14

public health issues, appraisal of qualitative research, and writing of grant proposals. The assigned

readings, videos and other media, for each session include both theoretical and applied material.

Assignments give students an opportunity to begin to develop new skills and learn by doing, writing,

presenting, as well as by reflecting on aspects of qualitative research.

This course will take place online, students will need a device (desktop computer, notebook or laptop) for

remote learning and internet connection,, classes and all activities will take place online.

Course Objectives Through course readings, learning activities, videos, creative exercises, assignments and other related

work students will be able to:

1. Discuss the diversity, breadth, nature, complexity, and application of qualitative research.

2. Collect/generate and analyze data in qualitative inquiry.

3. Interpret and describe qualitative research findings.

4. Develop research proposals for qualitative research, with an emphasis on contemporary SSHRC

and CIHR Project Grant practices.

5. Discuss research ethics and examine areas of sensitivity with regards to qualitative research

approaches and methods.

6. Identify potential strengths and limitations of qualitative research within students’ own areas of

research and public health practice.

7. Apply constructive and critical reflexivity through discussion and written or visual work.

Course Format This course draws on a variety of approaches to teaching and learning qualitative research: mini-lectures,

guest presentations, reflexive exercises, digital stories, individual experience and group discussion of

readings (literature on qualitative research & exemplars of qualitative research), fieldwork exercises, in-

class exercises, and take-home assignments. This course encourages students to “learn by doing”

therefore active participation in all course activities is emphasized.

Communication with the Professor Dr. Juando-Prats has overall responsibility for the course. Office hours are by appointment. Emails will

be responded as soon as possible (Monday to Friday). Students are also encouraged to post questions and

participate in discussions on Quercus.

Submission of Assignments Format of written assignments: All written assignments must be submitted electronically on Quercus.

Assignments must be double spaced, with one-inch margins, in 12 point font, Time New Roman, and

saved as a Word document. Please number pages. Your name should be in the document header and part

of the electronic filename.

All assignments are to be submitted electronically on Quercus

(https://q.utoronto.ca/courses/46670/pages/student-quercus-guide). Your assignment will not be evaluated

until it is submitted to the Assignments page on Quercus. The Assignments webpage will remain open

beyond the due date. Turnitin is used in this course when submitting written course essays for a review of

textual similarity and detection of possible plagiarism. In doing so, students will allow their assignments

to be included as source documents in the Turnitin.com reference database, where they will be used solely

Page 3 of 14

for the purpose of detecting plagiarism. The terms that apply to the University's use of the Turnitin.com

service are described here https://teaching.utoronto.ca/ed-tech/teaching-technology/turnitin/.

Note: Because of university ethics requirements, the work you do for this course may not be part of a

research study that will be published in any form. It is expected that you would not draw on this material

as part of a thesis or dissertation project, or for a paper for any other course unless permission was sought

and attained, and any appropriate ethical requirements met.

Assessment and grading practices follow the principles and key elements as stated

• by the University of Toronto’s Assessment and Grading Practices Policy

http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/Assets/Governing+Council+Digital+Assets/Policies/PD

F/grading.pdf

• by the rules and regulations as stated by the University of Toronto School of Graduate Studies

https://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/facultyandstaff/Pages/Policies-and-Guidelines.aspx

• and by the policies set out by the University of Toronto Office of the Governing Council

http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/policies.htm

Late Assignments Specified due dates must be adhered to unless prior permission—extension—has been sought and granted

on medical or other compelling grounds (in which case a new due date will be specified by the professor).

Penalties will be incurred for late assignments (5% per day of lateness reduction in mark) unless the

student has been given an extension in writing. Students should make every effort to discuss anticipated

late papers with the professor in advance of due dates.

Late assignments owing to illness or injury: The only medical documentation acceptable at the University

of Toronto is the University's “Verification of Illness or Injury” Form, which can only be completed by a

registered practitioner (see http://www.illnessverification.utoronto.ca/Frequently-Asked-Questions.htm).

Find the for at http://www.illnessverificationutoronto.ca/

If illness or injury is being presented as the reason for the request for an exception or an accommodation,

the claim of illness or injury itself is not necessarily sufficient grounds to guarantee approval of the

request. All cases are examined in their entirety before a decision is made: an illness or injury’s duration

and resulting incapacitation are taken into account along with other relevant factors in the context of the

course at issue. Note that the medical practitioner’s report must establish that the patient was examined

and diagnosed at the time of illness, not after the fact. The Faculty will not accept a statement that merely

confirms a later report of illness made by the student to a physician.

If the reason for the request for an exception or an accommodation is non-injury or illness related, the

documentation acceptable include a letter from your Graduate Faculty or Supervisor (appropriate in

certain circumstances); a letter from Accessibility Services (required for accessibility-related petitions); or

in some situations, other non-medical supporting documentation may be relevant.

Statement on Academic Integrity

Page 4 of 14

Plagiarism is a serious academic offence. Please review the University policies about plagiarism and visit

https://www.academicintegrity.utoronto.ca/

An excellent document on How Not to Plagiarize is also listed on this website. Review other academic

offences in the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters:

https://governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/secretariat/policies/code-behaviour-academic-matters-july-1-2019

The Code of Behavior on Academic Matters (University of Toronto Governing Council, 2019) reads:

It shall be an offence for a student knowingly:

• to represent as one's own any idea or expression of an idea or work of another in any academic

examination or term test or in connection with any other form of academic work, i.e. to commit

plagiarism;

• to submit, without the knowledge and approval of the Professor to whom it is submitted, any

academic work for which credit has previously been obtained or is being sought in another course or

program of study in the University or elsewhere;

• to submit any academic work containing a purported statement of fact or reference to a source

which has been concocted. (B.1.d-f)

The University of Toronto treats cases of academic misconduct very seriously. Academic integrity is a

fundamental value of learning and scholarship at the UofT. Participating honestly, respectfully,

responsibly, and fairly in this academic community ensures that your UofT degree is valued and respected

as a true signifier of your individual academic achievement.

The University of Toronto’s Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters outlines the behaviours that

constitute academic misconduct, the processes for addressing academic offences, and the penalties that

may be imposed. You are expected to be familiar with the contents of this document. Potential offences

include, but are not limited to:

In papers and assignments:

• Using someone else’s ideas or words without appropriate acknowledgment

• Submitting your own work in more than one course

• Making up sources or facts

• Obtaining or providing unauthorized assistance on any assignment (this includes working in

groups on assignments that are supposed to be individual work)

Students in graduate studies are expected to commit to the highest standards of integrity and to understand

the importance of protecting and acknowledging intellectual property. It is assumed that they bring to

their graduate studies a clear understanding of how to cite references appropriately, thereby avoiding

plagiarism.

Page 5 of 14

Any instance of suspected academic dishonesty will follow the procedures specified in the

aforementioned Academic Code of Behavior on Academic Matters.

Accommodations for Students with Disabilities or Medical Conditions Students with diverse learning styles and needs are welcome in this course. In particular, if you have a

disability/health/learning consideration that may require accommodations, please feel free to approach the

Professor and/or Accessibility Services at (416) 978 8060 and visit http://aoda.hrandequity.utoronto.ca/.

If you need or desire an accommodation for a disability or medical condition, please inform the Professor

and TAs early in the course, so we are able to proactively modify the way the course is taught to facilitate

participation and/or use resources available to us, such as Services for Students with Disabilities and

Adaptive Technology to facilitate learning. If assistance is required, we will treat that information as

private and confidential.

Religious Observances Please notify the Professor if religious observances conflict with class attendance or due dates for

assignments so we can make appropriate arrangements for alternate scheduling of evaluations or make up

of missed work.

Absence Due to Illness If an illness is likely to interfere with meeting a due date for an assignment or other requirements, you

should have your physician or health care provider complete a Verification of Student Illness or Injury

Form (http://www.illnessverification.utoronto.ca/index.php) at the time of your illness and submit it to the

Professor.

Course Resiliency The University’s Policy on Academic Continuity (January 26, 2012) states that the “University of

Toronto is committed to fulfilling its core academic mission of educating students. It recognizes that

events such as pandemic health emergencies, natural disasters, prolonged service interruptions, and

ongoing labour disputes are potential threats to academic continuity. Good stewardship requires that the

University undertake appropriate planning and preparation to promote continuity.” Concerning COVID-

19, find resources and updates for the U of T community at https://www.utoronto.ca/message-from-the-

university-regarding-the-coronavirus

In keeping with the University of Toronto policies governing grading practices, course evaluation

methods can be changed under the Grading Practices Policies with the consent of at least a simple

majority of the students enrolled in the course. If a decision is made to change the evaluation methods or

their relative weights, then the consent of students may be obtained by a vote taken in class or through

Quercus or other virtual means. See:

http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/Assets/Governing+Council+Digital+Assets/Policies/PDF/gradi

ng.pdf

Page 6 of 14

Recording Lectures and Class Notes Lectures will be audio-recorded live and posted on Quercus 24h after. Students are permitted to audio-

record lectures as a form of note-taking for personal use (no video-recording). Students are instructed to

not upload the recordings to a shared drive or folder or hosted on a video service platform such a

YouTube, SnapChat, Facebook messenger, or any other. Students are reminded that lectures are the

intellectual property of the Professor, and the recordings should be respected thus. Students are further

reminded that the Academic Handbook states: “It is absolutely forbidden for a student to publish a

Professor’s notes to a website or sell them” (section 4.5).

There may be guest lecturers in this course, and if the topics they cover include medical

record/confidential/un-published information, recordings will not be permitted, and Chatham House Rules

(https://www.chathamhouse.org/chatham-house-rule) will be in effect. Students will receive advance

warning should recordings be prohibited from any lecture in this course.

In addition to considerations of copyright and intellectual property, the need to protect the privacy of

fellow students in the class is also essential. In addition to general privacy protection, some students have

very serious and genuine reasons for not wanting their presence in a particular class or at a particular

institution to be public information and may be endangered by insufficient privacy protection when

classes are audio or video recorded. These considerations are guided both by university policy and the

Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) regulations.

Course Website—Quercus Course description, links to readings, videos, audio files, class slides from lectures, further resources, and

announcements will be posted on Quercus. Please check Quercus regularly a minimum of twice a week

not to miss updates and announcements.

Evaluation of Learning and Course Assignments The final grade for the course will be based on 3 assignments. Each student will be responsible for the

work in these following areas (see Quercus “Assignments” for specific guidelines and expectations):

Assignment 1: Reflexive Paper and Research Question Development (20%) —Individual

Submission, due June 1st 2020, maximum of 3 pages (double space, Times New Roman 12, 1-

inch margin).

Identify and describe one problem/issue/topic (related to public health), develop a qualitative research

question, and present the goals of a qualitative research study that would aim to answer the research

question. The ideas covered in the course readings, class presentations, and discussions must be clearly

present in the assignment.

The problem or phenomenon identified (public health with a social perspective) has to be clearly

described. Use publicly available media and academic literature to present and support your

statements.

Key features of qualitative inquiry, relevant for the problem identified, are presented and

reflected on from the perspective of the author.

The role of the researcher (author of the paper), and a reflection of the researcher’s role and

positionality, in relation to the topic or population, needs to be presented and described.

Page 7 of 14

The research question must be clearly presented and connected to the topic of interest/problem.

Present the goals of a research study based on the problem and question.

Assignment 2: Class Journal (35%)—Individual submission, due July 20th 2020. Specific

instructions will be given in class and posted on Quercus (different types of visual, text, and

audio media will be accepted).

Develop a class journal with weekly entries with the exercises done in class (up to July 14th) and a brief

critical reflection on the topic worked in class connected to the class exercise. The journal has to be done

individually. The instructions and details of the content of the journal will be weekly posted in Quercus

and explained in class.

Clearly indicate the week number, name of the exercise, and day(s) every single entry was

created.

Describe and present the class activity for every entry. The activity can have the format of a

written piece, image(s), a video clip, an audio file, a map, or other; this will be specifically

indicated and described weekly in class and posted in Quercus.

Critically and reflexively answer the questions posted in Quercus using the weekly readings.

Any written text must be double space, Times New Roman 12, and 1-inch margin.

One (only one) of the journal entries will be presented in class.

Assignment 3: Research Proposal (45%)—Individual or group submission (2 people max)

due August 3rd 2020, maximum 10 pages (double space, Times New Roman 12, 1-inch

margin).

Develop a research proposal, based on the CIHR structure, and using the contents of the course (further

guidance and instructions will be posted on Quercus).

Introduce the research study, identify a relevant research problem, question, and objectives. Use a

convincing argument for the reader.

Provide context based on available literature and studies done on the research topic to provide

context and justification for the study you are proposing.

Explain the research approach and design used and justify its appropriateness.

Provide a description of the methods you plan to use, population and sample, sampling and

recruitment strategies, data collection/generation methods.

Describe the reflexive strategies used and how these will relate to rigor.

Describe ethical considerations and challenges.

Provide a data analysis framework and plan.

Provide a budget and timeline.

Describe a knowledge translation plan (with detailed strategies if possible).

Identify impact and outcomes.

Include references and relevant appendices (appendices only if needed).

For a group-submission include contributions of each member of the group after the appendix

Page 8 of 14

Criteria for Grading Assignments Assessment and grading practices are subject to the grading regulations outlined by the School of

Graduate Studies, University of Toronto.

B+ Understanding of the central ideas and arguments covered in the course readings, class

presentations, and discussions, applied to the student’s research interests. Well-written,

coherent, well organized, and concise.

A- The above, plus the ability to integrate and analyze the ideas/arguments covered in the course

readings, class presentations, and discussions, applied to the student’s research interests.

A The above plus the ability to go beyond the ideas/arguments covered in the course readings,

class presentations and discussions, in a critical and constructive manner (i.e., compare and

contrast ideas/arguments, consider their implications, articulate your own position in relation to

the central ideas/arguments; the ability to support your own position).

A+ The above, plus intellectual creativity and flexibility (e.g., a new synthesis, insight or

application).

Grading Scale, School of Graduate Studies, University of Toronto:

Letter Grade Scale Scale of Marks

A+ 90 - 100%

A 85 - 89%

A- 80 - 84%

B+ 77 - 79%

B 73 - 76%

B- 70 - 72%

FZ (Fail) 0-69%

Page 9 of 14

Class Schedule

Week Date (2020) Topic

1 May 4 Introduction to Qualitative Research

2 May 11 Introduction to Qualitative Research: Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology

3 May 18 Thinking Qualitatively: Research Problems and Questions

4 May 25 Reflexivity in Qualitative Research

5 June 1 Participants and Populations

6 June 8 Data Collection Methods

7 June 15 Reading Week

8 June 22 The Qualitative Analytical Process I

9 June 29 Analytical Process II

10 July 6 Ethics of Qualitative Research and Power Relations

11 July 13 Critically Reading Qualitative Research

12 July 20 Writing Qualitative Research Proposals l

13 July 27 Writing Qualitative Research Proposals ll and KT Strategies

Suggested Readings Readings are available electronically through the University of Toronto Library or on Quercus. Additional readings and visual material may be announced in class or in Quercus during the course. The following readings are suggested readings; required readings (and visual resources) are highlighted in bold.

Week 1. Introduction

Teti, M., Schatz, E., & Liebenberg, L. (2020). Methods in the Time of COVID-19: The Vital Role of

Qualitative Inquiries. International Journal of Qualitative

Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920920962

Page 10 of 14

Charmaz, K. (2004). Premises, Principles, and Practices in Qualitative Research: Revisiting the

Foundations. Qualitative Health Research, 14 (7), 976-993.

http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/10497323/v14i0007/976_ppa

piqrrtf

Reimer-Kirkham, S. & Anderson, J.M. (2010). The advocate-analyst dialectic in critical and post-

colonial feminist research. Advances in Nursing Science, 33 (3): 196-205.

Kuper A, Reeves S, & Levinson, W. (2008). An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative

research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 337. https://dx-doi-

org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1136/bmj.a288

Mehra, B. (2002). Bias in Qualitative Research: Voices from an Online Classroom. The Qualitative

Report, 7(1), 1-19. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol7/iss1/2

Week 2. Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology \

Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2007). Justifying Knowledge, Justifying Method, Taking Action:

Epistemologies, Methodologies, and Methods in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research,

17, 1316-1328. http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/292119

Chamberlain, K. (2015). Epistemology and Qualitative Research. Chapter 2. In Rohleder, P., &

Lyons, A. C. (Eds.). (2015). Qualitative Research in Clinical and Health Psychology. New York, NY :

Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 9-28.

Hesse-Biber, S.N. & Leavy, P. (2011). Chapter 1: The Craft of Qualitative Research. In The Practice of

Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. (PDF).

Week 3. Thinking Qualitatively: Research Problems and Questions

Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process. International

Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22 (4), 431-447.

http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/09518398/v22i0004/431_dqr

qarp

Fletcher, A. J. (2016). Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets method.

International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1-14.

http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1080/13645579.2016.1144401

Reeves, S., Albert, M., Kuper, A. & Hodges, B. (2008). Why use theories in qualitative research?

British Medical Journal, 337: 631-634. http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a949.extract

Scambler, G. (2009). Health-related stigma. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(3), 441-455.

http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/01419889/v31i0003/441_hs.xml

Honan, E, Knobel, M., Baker, C., Davies, B. “Producing possible Hannahs: Theory and the subject of

research”, Qualitative Inquiry 6 (1), 2000:9-32

http://journals.sagepub.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/doi/pdf/10.1177/107780040000600102

Sandelowski, M. (1993). Theory Unmasked: The Uses and Guises of Theory in Qualitative Research.

Research in Nursing & Health, 16, 213-218. http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/377092

http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/377117

Week 4: Reflexivity in Qualitative Research

Finlay, L. (2002). “Outing” the Researcher: The Provenance, Process, and Practice of Reflexivity.

Page 11 of 14

Qualitative Health Research, 12, 531-545. http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/292136

Dickson-Swift, V., James, E.L., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2007) Doing sensitive research:

what challenges do qualitative researchers face? Qualitative Research, 7, 327-353.

http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/292150

Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don't: researcher's position and reflexivity in qualitative

research" Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234

Doyle, S. (2013). Reflexivity and the capacity to think. Qualitative Health Research, 23 (2), 248-255.

http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/10497323/v23i0002/248_ratctt

Garcia, A., Standlee, A., Bechkoff, J., & Yan Cui , . (2009). Ethnographic approaches to the internet and

computer-mediated communication. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38(1), 52-84.

http://uoft.me/2NW

Wolfinger, N. H. (2002). On writing fieldnotes: collection strategies and background expectancies.

Qualitative Research, 2(1), 85-93. http://uoft.me/2NZ

Bogdewic, S. (1999). Participant observation. In BF Crabtree and WL Miller (Eds.). Doing qualitative

research (second edition). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications. Pp 47-69. PDF.

Pezalla. A., Pettigrew, J., Miller-Day, M (2012) Researching the researcher-as-instrument: an exercise in

interviewer self-reflexivity. Qualitative Research, 12 (2), 165-185.

http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/508295

Week 5: Participants and Populations

Mandeson, L., Bennett, E., Andajani-Sutjaho, S. (2006). The social dynamics of the interview: age,

class and gender. Qualitative Health Research, 16 (10), 1317-1334.

http://qhr.sagepub.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/content/16/10/1317.full.pdf+html

Jachyra, P., Atkinson, M., and Gibson, B. (2014). Gender performativity during interviews with

adolescent boys. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 6(4), 568-582.

Week 6. Data Collection Methods

Lehoux, P., Poland, B., & Daudelin, G. (2006). Focus group research and “the patient’s view”.

Social Science & Medicine, 63, 2091-2104. http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/377117

Bauer, K.W., Yang, Y.W., & Austin, S.B. (2004). “How Can We Stay Healthy when you’re

Throwing All of this in Front of Us?” Findings from Focus Groups and Interviews in Middle

Schools on Environmental Influences on Nutrition and Physical Activity. Health Education and

Behavior, 31, 34-46.

van Manen, M. A. (2017). The ventricular assist device in the life of the child: A phenomenological

pediatric study. Qualitative health research, 27(6), 792-804.

Starks, H., & Trinidad, S.B. (2007). Choose Your Method: A Comparison of Phenomenology, Discourse

Analysis and Grounded Theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1372-1380.

Kearney, M.H., Murphy, S., & Rosenbaum, M. (1994). Mothering on Crack Cocaine: A Grounded

Theory Analysis. Soc. Sci. Med., 38, 351-361. http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/292122

Ahmad, F., Driver, N., McNally, M.J., & Stewart, D.E. (2009). “Why doesn’t she seek help for partner

abuse?” An exploratory study with South Asian immigrant women. Social Science and Medicine, 69,

613-622. http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/377112

Page 12 of 14

Kenny, M. & Fourie, R. (2014). Tracing the History of Grounded Theory Methodology: From Formation

to Fragmentation. The Qualitative Report, 19(103), 1-9.

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/kenny103.pdf

Week 8: The Analytical Process

Brown, N. (2019). “Listen to Your Gut”: A Reflexive Approach to Data Analysis.The Qualitative Report, 24(13), 31-43. Retrieved from

https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol24/iss13/4Birks M, Chapman Y, and Francis K. (2008).

Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing,

13(1):68-75. https://journals-sagepub-

com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/doi/abs/10.1177/1744987107081254

Goodman, J. H. (2004). Coping With Trauma and Hardship Among Unaccompanied Refugee Youths

From Sudan. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 1177-1196.

http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/377125

Hayes, M., Ross, I.E., Gasher, M., et al. (2007). Telling stories: News media, health literacy and public

policy in Canada. Social Science and Medicine, 64, 1842-1852.

http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/292128

MacIntosh, J., Wuest, J., Gray, M.M., & Cronkhite, M. (2010). Workplace Bullying in Health Care

Affects the Meaning of Work. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 1128-1141.

http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/377126

Mykhalovskiy, E., & McCoy, L. (2002). Troubling ruling discourses of health: using institutional

ethnography in community-based research. Critical Public Health, 12, 17-37.

http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/377127

Caelli, K., Ray, L. & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as Mud’: Toward a greater clarity in generic qualitative

research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2): 1-13.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/2_2/pdf/caellietal.pdf

Kahlke, R. (2014). Generic qualitative approaches: Pitfalls and benefits of methodological mixology.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13: 37-52

https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/article/view/19590/16141

Gratton, M., O’Donnell, S. (2011) Communication technologies for focus groups with remote

communities: a case study of research with First Nations in Canada. Qualitative Research, 11 (2): 159–

175. http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/507551

Lopez, K. A. and Willis, D. G. (2004). Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their

contributions to nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health Research, 14 (5), 726-735.

http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/508293

Glaser, B.G. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International

Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1 (2): 1-31.(PDF)

Wallerstein, N.B. & Duran, B. (2006). Using community-based participatory research to address

health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7 (3), 312-323.

http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/15248399/v07i0003/312_

ucprtahd

Page 13 of 14

Week 9. Analytical Process ll

Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of

qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity, 36. 391-409.

Pamphilon B (1999) The Zoom model: A dynamic framework for the analysis of life

histories. Qualitative Inquiry 5: 393–410.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 3, 77-101. http://uoft.me/2Tr

Moylan, C. A., Derr, A. S., & Lindhorst, T. (2015). Increasingly mobile: How new technologies can

enhance qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 14(1), 36-47. http://uoft.me/2SQ

Bazeley, P. (2009). Analyzing qualitative data: More than ‘identifying themes’. Malaysian Journal of

Qualitative Research, 2, 6-22.

http://jayneglass.weebly.com/uploads/3/7/9/9/3799002/more_than_themes.pdf

Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in

systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8:45, 1-10.

http://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

Thorne, S., Jensen, L., Kearney, M., Noblit, G. & Sandelowski, M. (2004). Qualitative

metasynthesis: Reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qualitative

Health Research, 14 (10), 1342-1365.

http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/10497323/v14i0010/1

342_qmromoaia

Week 10. Ethics of Qualitative Research and Power Relations

Forbat, L. & Henderson, J (2003). “Stuck in the middle with you”: The ethics and process of

qualitative research with two people in an intimate relationship. Qualitative Health Research, 13

(10), 1453-1462. http://qhr.sagepub.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/content/13/10/1453.full.pdf+html

Peter, E. (2015). The ethics in qualitative health research: special considerations. Ciência & Saúde

Coletiva, 20(9), 2625-2630. http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/522026

Guillemin, M. & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity and “ethically important moments” in research.

Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (2): 261-280. http://qix.sagepub.com/content/10/2/261.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc

Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2006). Blurring boundaries in qualitative

health research on sensitive topics. Qualitative Health Research, 16(6), 853-871.

http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/480140

Ramcharan, P. and Cutcliffe, J. (2001). Judging the ethics of qualitative research: considering ‘ethics as

process’ model. Health and Social Care in the Community, 9 (6): 358-366

http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/09660410/v09i0006/358_jteoqrcta

pm.xml

Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (2010). Chapter 10: Qualitative Research. In Tri-Council

Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (read only pp. 1-3).

http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/chapter10-chapitre10/

Page 14 of 14

Week 11. Critically Readig Qualitative Research

Eakin, J.M. & Mykhalovskiy, E. (2003). Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research:

Reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences. Journal of Evaluation in

Clinical Practice, 9 (2), 187-194. http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.cfm/38411

Canadian Journal of Public Health. Guide for Appraisal of Qualitative Manuscripts.

https://journal.cpha.ca/filesonline/forreviewers/en/qualitative_e.pdf

Week 12 and 13. Writing Qualitative Research Proposals l and ll

CIHR Project Grant Program http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/49051.html

SSHRC Insight Grant Program https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-

financement/umbrella_programs-programme_cadre/insight-savoir-eng.aspx

Becker, L. (2012). Developing Research Proposals. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

http://go.utlib.ca/cat/11238441

Thomas, D. R. & Hodges, I. D. (2010). Designing and Managing your Research Project: Core Skills for

Social and Health Research. Los Angeles: SAGE. http://go.utlib.ca/cat/9272331

See the additional list of references in Quercus, in the two last Modules.